🚀 go-pugleaf

Till Harbaum wrote:
<snip>

> What to do now? I really don't like the idea of companies
> taking gpl'd code and including it into their binary
> distributions without folwing the open-source concept.

I think that's a clear violation of the GPL : they could have modified
the gcc and use it internally, but if they release it, they have to give
the source code with it.
Maybe you should officially contact the core developpers of GCC or the
FSF for such a violation.

-- 

- R�mi -
Remove ".nospam" for mail copies of the answers

Chris Ebenezer wrote:
> 
> R��mi Letot <remi.letot.nospam@advalvas.be> writes:
> : Maybe you should officially contact the core developpers of GCC or the
> : FSF for such a violation.
> 
> Remember that OTOH it could well be a mistake (i.e legal people writing
> the license without any other input), so maybe the quiet chat approach
> would be best.

Till mentionned he did a "quiet chat approach", but had no answer from
them. What is the possibility for such an approach if they simply don't
want to answer ? Contacting the FSF and the GCC "team" doesn't mean hard
actions, it's simply to take advice and signal the violation. They can
then ask Handspring for explanation, and if no answer take more "robust"
action. I don't think the FSF would jump on HS without other attempt to
resolve the conflict and without fair warnings.

-- 

- R�mi -
Remove ".nospam" for mail copies of the answers

Till Harbaum <harbaum@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> wrote in message
news:yksiu44ltx4.fsf@flens.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de...
> Hi!
>
> Under http://info.handspring.com/developers_kit.html
> Handspring offers a development kit for their soon to
> come visor pdas. Some of the tools in this package
> are based on gnu tools which all come under the gpl.
>
> The gpl sais that you are allowed to modify and redistribute
> all gpl'd software but you have to make the sources
> available. Because of that i've asked handspring for
> the sources of the development kit.
>
> Unfortunately they don't want to release them now. They
> told me to wait some week and to return to their pages
> then to download the sources, since they don't want to
> publish the current version. Then i told them that the
> gpl enforces them to give everybody access to the sources
> of their modified gpl'd software, but they did not reply
> to that one.
>

You obviously have never released software. Its not like
companies have their in-house tools lying around packaged
nicely, all documented and friendly. Give them some time
to put together a development kit with source, examples and
documentation. They didn't say they wouldn't release it, the
just asked for some time.

Tom

Tom Whittaker wrote in message ...
>
>Till Harbaum <harbaum@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> wrote in message
>news:yksiu44ltx4.fsf@flens.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de...
>> Under http://info.handspring.com/developers_kit.html
>> Handspring offers a development kit for their soon to
>> come visor pdas. Some of the tools in this package
>> are based on gnu tools which all come under the gpl.
>>
>> The gpl sais that you are allowed to modify and redistribute
>> all gpl'd software but you have to make the sources
>> available. Because of that i've asked handspring for
>> the sources of the development kit.
>>
>> Unfortunately they don't want to release them now. They
>> told me to wait some week and to return to their pages
>> then to download the sources,

Technically they haven't released their software yet. I would at least wait
until the hardware is released(which in turn releases their software). Then
they are supposed to release the source code, until that point they have
every right to keep it under wraps. But I'm sure since they indicated they
were going to release the source, the power that be would just ignore the
issue.

Matt Sparks

Till Harbaum writes:
> What to do now?

Notify the authors of the GPL'd works.  They are the only ones who can take
any action.
-- 
John Hasler                This posting is in the public domain.
john@dhh.gt.org            Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill         Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin         Do not send email advertisements to this address.

Rémi Letot <remi.letot.nospam@advalvas.be> writes:

> Till mentionned he did a "quiet chat approach", but had no answer from
> them. What is the possibility for such an approach if they simply don't
> want to answer ? Contacting the FSF and the GCC "team" doesn't mean hard
I just asked them for the source (without mentioning the gpl at all).
They asked me to wait some time, because they haven't finished work on it.

I then told them, that since they have a binary online, they obviously
have a working source and that it's probably gpl'd. They answered me to
wait two weeks which they need to clear up some third party licence
problems (obviously involving some non-gpl'd stuff).

And i then sent them a mail and told them that i am disappointed by this and
that i am afraid that once people start delaying the source for
two weeks, the next one will delay it even longer and sometime we'll see
binary version of gpl'd software with no source at all. They didn't
reply to that.

I am just wondering if the increasing popularity of linux will cause
such things to happen more frequently. The chance to earn money with
other peoples sources is increasing and someone will try it. I think
the FSF will soon have to show how far they'll go to defend the gpl.

Ciao,
  Till

"Tom Whittaker" <whittaker@home.com> writes:
> You obviously have never released software. Its not like
I have ... and i never had problem with waiting to release
the binary until i had cleaned up the source.

> companies have their in-house tools lying around packaged
> nicely, all documented and friendly. Give them some time
> to put together a development kit with source, examples and
> documentation. They didn't say they wouldn't release it, the
> just asked for some time.

Yes, but that means that they currently have something online 
in binary version that they can't publish in source (e.g.
with third party libs in it or the like, they told me they 'have
to check some legal things on a couple of tools in the package 
that might be owned by somebody else'). This might really 
become a problem: They distributed the binary. The gpl requires
them to release the source, too. But doing so may violate some
other licenses.

I don't expect them to have everything lying around distribution 
ready all time. But they decided to use gpl software (noone enforces 
them to do that and there are excellent commercial palm compilers
out there) and there is no reason for them not to follow the gpl 
rules.

Once a company starts breaking the gpl just a little bit, the
next one will perhaps do it just a little more ...

Ciao,
  Till 

On 18 Oct 1999 18:55:31 +0200, Till Harbaum <harbaum@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> wrote:
>Once a company starts breaking the gpl just a little bit, the
>next one will perhaps do it just a little more ...

...and then, perhaps, the virus will be disinfected once and for all.

In article <yksd7uclibg.fsf@flens.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>,
Till Harbaum  <harbaum@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> wrote:
>Yes, but that means that they currently have something online 
>in binary version that they can't publish in source (e.g.
>with third party libs in it or the like, they told me they 'have
>to check some legal things on a couple of tools in the package 
>that might be owned by somebody else'). This might really 
>become a problem: They distributed the binary. The gpl requires
>them to release the source, too. But doing so may violate some
>other licenses.
>
>I don't expect them to have everything lying around distribution 
>ready all time. But they decided to use gpl software (noone enforces 
>them to do that and there are excellent commercial palm compilers
>out there) and there is no reason for them not to follow the gpl 
>rules.

It sounds like they screwed up by not realizing the implications of
releasing software that was derived from code with incompatible licenses.
It sounds like they're trying to resolve it as best they can, but it will
take a couple of weeks to work out the issues.  What more do you expect
them to do?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:

Barry> It sounds like they screwed up by not realizing the
Barry> implications of releasing software that was derived from code
Barry> with incompatible licenses.  It sounds like they're trying to
Barry> resolve it as best they can, but it will take a couple of weeks
Barry> to work out the issues.  What more do you expect them to do?

Well, pull the binary if they haven't already.

-- 
Russell Senior         ``The two chiefs turned to each other.        
seniorr@teleport.com     Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible       
                         profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
                         extremely unusual.' ''                      

Till Harbaum wrote:

> Under http://info.handspring.com/developers_kit.html
> Handspring offers a development kit for their soon to
> come visor pdas. Some of the tools in this package
> are based on gnu tools which all come under the gpl.

Please be more specific. Handspring's SDK is divided in two parts:

1) Cygwin.exe Ver B20.1
2) PalmOSGNUToolsLite.exe REV 1.02

The first sounds like a standard Cygnus win32 SDK. If Handspring
hasn't modified it, then I don't see any big deal in not making source
available on Handspring's site.

The second is the Palm-specific stuff. What GPL'ed code does it use?
Any? Are you certain that Handspring is building on top of GPL'ed code
improperly, or is this just a naming issue, like "CodeWarrior for
Linux, GNU Edition"?

-Peter

Till Harbaum wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Under http://info.handspring.com/developers_kit.html
> Handspring offers a development kit for their soon to
> come visor pdas. Some of the tools in this package
> are based on gnu tools which all come under the gpl.
[...]

> What to do now? I really don't like the idea of companies
> taking gpl'd code and including it into their binary
> distributions without folwing the open-source concept.
gcc is maintained at Cygnus. www.cygnus.com.
Tell them.
Greetings!
Volker
-- 
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

Matthew Sparks wrote:
> 
> Technically they haven't released their software yet.
They released the binary form, it's "in the wild",  they must release
the source for it, no matter what problems they have, the source exists
and works. Noone forced them to use GPL'd code. They did so, they must
follow the rules.

-- 

- R�mi -
Remove ".nospam" for mail copies of the answers

Barry Margolin wrote:

> It sounds like they screwed up by not realizing the implications of
> releasing software that was derived from code with incompatible licenses.
By not releasing the source they chose to break the GPL, apparently to
avoid breaking another licence. You are right, the licence may be
incompatible, but that's not an excuse, it's an explanation.

-- 

- R�mi -
Remove ".nospam" for mail copies of the answers

Peter W <peterw@NoJunkMail.usa.net> wrote:

> Please be more specific. Handspring's SDK is divided in two parts:

> 1) Cygwin.exe Ver B20.1
> 2) PalmOSGNUToolsLite.exe REV 1.02

> The first sounds like a standard Cygnus win32 SDK. If Handspring
It obviously is. 
> hasn't modified it, then I don't see any big deal in not making source
> available on Handspring's site.
So why din't they? Did they just not read the gpl? 

> The second is the Palm-specific stuff. What GPL'ed code does it use?
> Any? Are you certain that Handspring is building on top of GPL'ed code
> improperly, or is this just a naming issue, like "CodeWarrior for
> Linux, GNU Edition"?

Uhm, you are kidding, right? First the name: 'GNU tools' has nothing to
do with GPL (GNU public license)? 

And where did you get the information that the tools are based on 
CodeWarrior? The archive i downloaded from handsprings web site 
contains files like 'palm-gcc' and 'palm-gdb'. Unless Codewarrior
was renamed to gcc/gdb, this archive is based to 99% on gpl'd source 
code.

Ciao,
  Till

In article <380C33ED.2B4F@advalvas.be>,
R�mi Letot  <remi.letot.nospam@advalvas.be> wrote:
>Matthew Sparks wrote:
>> 
>> Technically they haven't released their software yet.
>They released the binary form, it's "in the wild",  they must release
>the source for it, no matter what problems they have, the source exists
>and works. Noone forced them to use GPL'd code. They did so, they must
>follow the rules.

The GPL can't force them to violate other licenses.  GPL clause 7
specifically says:

    If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
    obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations,
    then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

They can't go back in time and undo the fact that they distributed the
binaries in the first place, so the best they can do is stop distributing
them now that they've been informed of the conflict.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

Till writes:
> The archive i downloaded from handsprings web site contains files like
> 'palm-gcc' and 'palm-gdb'.

In that case you should notify the FSF.  They own the gcc and gdb
copyrights.
-- 
John Hasler                This posting is in the public domain.
john@dhh.gt.org            Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill         Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin         Do not send email advertisements to this address.

Till Harbaum wrote:

> Under http://info.handspring.com/developers_kit.html
> Handspring offers a development kit for their soon to
> come visor pdas. Some of the tools in this package
> are based on gnu tools which all come under the gpl.

> Unfortunately they don't want to release [the source code] now. They
>
> told me to wait some week and to return to their pages
> then to download the sources, since they don't want to
> publish the current version.

This is essentially the same response I got today (1999/10/25, one
week after your post, and six days after I emailed them). I was told
that the source code "should" be up "this week". To which I responded
that the GPL, particulary sections 5 and 7, make it quite clear that
they cannot release binaries without making source available. We'll
see.

-Peter

Till Harbaum wrote:
> What to do now?

See http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl-violation.html

Till Harbaum wrote:

> Under http://info.handspring.com/developers_kit.html
> Handspring offers a development kit for their soon to
> come visor pdas. Some of the tools in this package
> are based on gnu tools which all come under the gpl.

The source code is now avaiable on
http://www.handspring.com/developers/developers_kit.asp

Thanks, Handspring !

In article <3818E355.D6183161@NoJunkMail.usa.net>,
  Peter W <peterw@NoJunkMail.usa.net> wrote:
> Till Harbaum wrote:
>
> > Under http://info.handspring.com/developers_kit.html
> > Handspring offers a development kit for their soon to
> > come visor pdas. Some of the tools in this package
> > are based on gnu tools which all come under the gpl.
>
> The source code is now avaiable on
> http://www.handspring.com/developers/developers_kit.asp
>
> Thanks, Handspring !
You're Welcome! Have fun!
Robert


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.